In the United Kingdom (UK), public law, such as constitutional law, protects democracy at all costs by establishing principles that govern the interaction between the Government and legal citizens or institutions; public laws keep tyranny at bay. Moreover, through public law North Ireland, Scotland, England, and Wales can reinforce the state sovereignty of the United Kingdom. To breed transparency and democracy, the activities of the arms of Government, the executive and the legislature have to be scrutinized by the judiciary. However, there is a concern about whether the courts in the UK are discharging the principles of the Constitution in their reviews of the lawfulness of other public bodies’ decisions regarding public laws. This report critically analyses the degree to which judicial review is a proper mechanism for enforcing the propositions of the Constitution in the UK by referring to public law cases brought to court by Good Law Project from the last 10 years.
Public Law Case from the Good Law Project
The Good Law Project is a political non-profit organization that uses the law to protect the environment, hold the Government accountable and encourage inclusivity in the United Kingdom. Moreover, the Good Law Project relies on donations to support its activism and quest to manifest change for a fairer and brighter future in the UK (Good Law Project, n.d.). One of the recent cases that the Good Law Project have tussled with concerns Government Ministers using private massaging tools to conduct official government businesses. To hold power accountable, the Good Law Public filed a lawsuit in court against government ministers using private emails to carry out official activities. According to the case, the Good Law Project claims that using private communications in the official government business arena impedes accountability and threatens national security since vital information and records are not readily available for public scrutiny.
Despite government policies on the use of private messaging tools, the problem needs to be adequately addressed since the policies fail to clearly outline the circumstances to which political leaders are allowed to use their private email accounts. The Good Law Project was not satisfied by the decision of the High Court and Court of Appeal ruling in favour of the Government and opted for an appeal hearing in the Supreme Court. Ministers using personal messaging tools such as personal email accounts or mobile phones and instant messaging services such as WhatsApp 24-hour auto deletion tool is detrimental to the public since less formal follows can be done. Therefore, there is a likely need for persistence from the Good Law Project and any organization or person obligated to keep the Government in check for transparency (Private emails, public Accountability? 2023). A different article (A dark day for Accountability, 2022) by the Good Law Project revealed the names of the ministers who apparently use private communication channels.
Moreover, despite the security policy, the Court of Appeal argued that the court could not enforce the issue since it might cause political sanctions. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court dismissed the Good Law Project’s appeal against the ruling of the High Court and the Court of Appeal, testifying about the lawfulness of conducting government business using private communication channels. Therefore, the Good Law Project asserts that Ministers are bound to repeatedly use personal messaging tools, which breaches the Government’s policy against using personal communication channels in formal settings (Private emails: An update, 2023). In the United Kingdom, ministers are appointed by the prime minister from the House of Lords and the House of Commons, meaning they are part of the executive. Considering the case scenario presented by the Good Law Project, the fact that ministers are using personal messaging tools to run government-related business implies that they deter public scrutiny and, ultimately, the transparency of the cabinet.
The Government Vs Transparency and Accountability
Constitutional conventions obligate the Government to publish details of ministers’ operations with external organizations in their respective departments. Nevertheless, the Government has assured transparency by enabling the public to demand accountability from public bodies and politicians regarding public expenditure in its Transparency Agenda. According to (Government Transparency Agenda – Gov.Uk, n.d.), the Government of the UK committed to upholding transparency, stating that central Government Information, Communication and Technology (ICT) must all from July 2010 be published online. Moreover, tender documents from September 2010 for contracts over £10,000 are to be availed on a single website accessible to the public. Apart from contracts, detailed business plans, travels and meetings, and departmental organograms, information should also be released from departments to the public.
The hems of transparency transcend central government departments to Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPB) such as Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Although the Government claims that transparency is assured and public bodies are accountable to the public, the case presented by the Good Law Project, which represents public interests, shows otherwise. Moreover, since the whole judiciary system ruled in favour of the Government in that particular case, it raises questions on whether judicial review is a trustworthy mechanism for enforcing the constitutional principles of the United Kingdom.
Final Argument
According to the evidence presented in court by the Good Law Project (Good Law Project, n.d.), there is a mismatch between the Government claiming to be transparent and the reality of what happens in the departments governed by the ministers. Ministers that use private communication channels while engaging in government operations make it hard for the public to audit their activities. Unfortunately, Ministers can only be trusted if they are willing to allow total transparency to the public by using public communication or decline to give out their phones for scrutiny. The possibility of engaging in corruption, illegal business, nepotism, or any other undemocratic activities is high when Ministers use personal email accounts to carry out formal government projects. Furthermore, when Ministers use private emails and limit access to information on their operations to the public, contracts will not be contested relatively by the private sector, which means democracy is undermined in that sense. Therefore, since the judicial review condoned the Ministers’ use of private emails and other communication channels, it is a less effective tool for imposing principles of the UK Constitution.
Moreover, there are implications that the principle of separation of power and independence of arms of Government by the Constitution is weak in the UK since the executive influences the decisions of the judiciary, which is supposed to be an independent arm of Government. The Constitution in the UK is supposed to govern the relations between the judiciary and the executive; however, the Good Law Project case implies that the relation between the two arms of Government disregards the Constitution. If the Constitution had been adhered to considering the evidence provided by the Good Law Project, then the court would have ruled against the ministers and taken legal actions to curtail the use of private messaging while handling government dealings or punished the perpetrators in that case.
Conclusion
Although the Judicial review has done its best to enforce the principles of the UK constitution, its efforts are still lagging in archiving and sustaining complete democracy in the United Kingdom. However, judicial review was only an effective instrument for executing the constitutional conventions if it was less influenced by other public bodies such as the legislature and the executive. Fortunately, independent private organizations such as the Good Law Project have proven to be relentless in the quest to keep public bodies accountable to the public. Such organizations do an excellent job of upholding democracy in the United Kingdom since they do their best to keep the Government in check. Therefore, apart from judicial reviews, other tools that can effectively enforce the principles of the Constitution in the UK are independent political non-profit organizations.
References
Good Law Project (no date). Available at: https://goodlawproject.org/#return-to-form-flex-mod-banner (Accessed: April 18, 2023).
Private emails, public accountability? (2023) Good Law Project. Available at: https://goodlawproject.org/case/private-emails/ (Accessed: April 18, 2023).
A dark day for Accountability (2022) Good Law Project. Available at: https://goodlawproject.org/update/a-dark-day-for-accountability/ (Accessed: April 18, 2023).
Private emails: An update (2023) Good Law Project. Available at: https://goodlawproject.org/update/private-emails-an-update/ (Accessed: April 18, 2023).
Government Transparency Agenda – Gov.Uk, (no date). Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/280684/2011-transparency-supplement.pdf (Accessed: April 18, 2023).
write